₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
The issue is that the NIV omits verses not only in Mark but even in Luke, John, Acts. Very strategic verses too. The NIV is too tampered-with to be considered a version of the Bible.

The Bible is true. I trust it. However, I don't trust adulterated versions of it.

So you are moving the goal post by now saying that the NIV is not the Bible? Ok, I won't focus on this for the sake of not going down an unproductive rat hole.

DoctorAlien:
The scientists created phones: does it mean they can't lie? This is argumentum ad verecundiam.

Sure, they can lie. They are humans too. But the difference is that you are claiming that they are lying because their findings do not agree with the Bible. You need proof in order for me to believe this. But it would be extremely hard for you to convince any rational thinker about this because physical science has produced more reproducible findings about nature and the universe, than the Bible ever has. The books of the Bible are approximately two thousand years old, yet we are still arguing about which version is correct.

Modern science is only 500 years old, and it has done more to shed light on the way nature works, much more than the Bible (cue: you've visited a hospital before abi? you were vaccinated as a child abi? you use a cellphone abi? you use GPS abi? you know that airplanes fly abi?). To compare the credibility of the Bible to the credibility of physical scientists is absurd. You are welcome to defend yourself, however.

DoctorAlien:
How do you explain the fact that the potassium-argon dating of a sample gives one age, while uranium-lead dating for the same sample gives a totally unrelated age?

This has never been shown to be universally true unless the sample was contaminated. I await your evidence that this is always true.

DoctorAlien:
Edited: It has to be pointed out that radioactive decay is not the same thing as radiometric dating.

Ok, your last sentence is uninformed and just completely wrong. Radioactive decay is the reason why radiometric dating works. That you are not aware of this basic fact fundamentally challenges and dismisses the basis of your opposition to radiometric dating.

The notion that there are unexplained discrepancies between Potassium-Argon dating and Uranium-Lead dating is false. You need a mountain of explanations to convince any deeply physics-literate person about this. If you are correct that radiometric dating is dubious, then you will have to tell me why radioactive decay works, why X-Rays work, why nuclear fusion/fission works, why nuclear reactors work? etc. If you are gonna criticize radiometric dating, you need to understand it first. This is why I was asking you if you were a physical scientist, so as to determine the basis upon which you are dismissing these scientific facts.

Edited for clarity.

DoctorAlien:
The issue is not the gospel of Mark: the issue is the NIV. That the NIV omits many(important) verses of the Bible without explanation calls its validity into serious question.

You say that the older manuscripts this, older manuscripts that: Can it not also be that those manuscripts were edited, and those strategic verses removed? How do you explain the fact that the NIV avoids referring to Jesus as the Christ or Lord? Is something not smelling?

Ok I see why you focus on the omission of several verses when compared to KJV. The KJV version of Mark (and certain other gospels) was written off a newer manuscript that is considered to not be as credible as the older ones. Keep in mind that in the "days of old", manuscripts were replicated via hand copying, so this introduced new errors to each new iteration of a manuscript that was written. For this reason, modern Bible translators consider older manuscripts to be more accurate than newer ones. This is why the NIV Mark is demonstrably different from the KJV Mark. NIV is likely closer to original manuscript actually.

The printing press was only invented in the 15th century, so before that (i.e. 2000 years ago when these manuscripts were initially written) and up until the 15th century, replicating manuscripts was done by hand thus leading to lots of discrepancies and errors. No Christian theologian argues against these plentiful discrepancies between manuscripts of different ages (for the same book in the Bible), their claim is that even the discrepancies are either divinely inspired or immaterial; this isn't credible.

Your statement denouncing the NIV leads one to conclude that you don't think it is fully accurate and literally true. This contradicts your claim/belief that all of the Bible is true & literally inspired, since you have now parsed your statement to imply that some versions of the Bible are not literally true, but some others are.

DoctorAlien:
LOL. It's a pity that all the physical scientists you've met swallowed every thing "science" told them hook, line and sinker, without even verifying their trustworthiness. I'm not a physical scientist, any way. That does not mean I don't have knowledge of Math and Physics.

I didn't say you don't have the knowledge of math and physics. But if you are going to criticize an outstanding majority of physical scientists then you should have credible reasons to. You forget that the device you type on is due to the ingenuity of the same physical scientists that you consider to be gullible automatons.

The specific example you give about wrong radiocarbon dating may be true. But then you should realize that science is very open to self-correction. It is indeed true that there have been some samples that have been misdated due to contamination by other newer or older material, but this is a very small minority. The peer review process of vetting scientific findings is very effective at weeding out bad information, which is why science advances and self-corrects.

Also, don't confuse radiocarbon dating with all of radiometric dating. Radiocarbon dating is just one way of dating (its half life is a bit much shorter than that of certain other elements yet it is excellent at dating matter less than 50,000 years old). Rubidium and/or Potassium and/or Uranium dating (and others), for instance are used to date the age of our solar system. These dating systems have been used to a 99.9% accuracy to determine the age of our solar system to be about 4.6 billion years old. How do you reconcile this with the Biblical notion that the universe is 6000 years old?

It befuddles me that you reject all these findings. I myself have used Geiger counters to measure radioactive decay and I know this phenomenon is real. In addition, these same radioactive decay methodologies are what help us to generate X-Rays, create nuclear weapons, generate electricity using nuclear reactors, and more. Are all these wrong? If so, why? If all of this is wrong, then you might know more than all the physical scientists in the world combined.

Btw, I am not asking about your level of scientific training in order to dismiss your views. I am asking so that I can explain certain things differently.

My commentary about Mark is not about what he omits, so it is your place to answer why he omits certain verses and not others, since I am not the one with the position that the Bible is literal truth. But I am not asking you to justify why he omits verses, I am not concerned about that as I don't think it helps me evaluate its credibility.

My specific commentary on Mark is about its historical manuscripts and the absolutely inarguable fact that the oldest manuscripts of the book don't have some critical verses that newer historical manuscripts have. It is widely accepted that the additions to the newer historical manuscripts were forged. How do you reconcile this with your idea that the whole Bible is literally true and divinely inspired?

I have a lot more to say about the Bible's credibility but I want us to address them one by one, as thoroughly but as quickly as possible. If we are dancing around the same issue for too long, I'll move on to other issues I want to bring up.

Hmm, also, what do you mean when you say you are a scientist? I need to know specifically because I don't want to make assumptions on how you determine what is true and what isn't. I've never met a physical scientist who says radiometric dating (as a whole) is a dubious method. So I need to know how to respond effectively, but I can't do this if I don't know the foundation of how you interpret scientific claims.

DoctorAlien:
NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

Response to your Mark comment: The verses were not ommitted from KJV because that version was written based on newer manuscripts, when the older manuscript hadn't yet been found.

Comment about your post on radiometric dating: what is your level of scientific training? I need to know this in order to adequately address this topic. Thx.

Edited: fixed typos

From a logical perspective, that some parts of the Bible have credence doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is literally true. I gave the Harry Potter example to illustrate this.

Please could you respond to my statement about the book of Mark? I would recommend you open an NIV Bible and do some reading about that part I mentioned.

About radiometric dating, are you saying that radiometric dating is always wrong? As you respond to this, let me also ask you: to what extent are you conversant with science? Are you trained at the university level in any of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subject? I ask not to be condescending but to know how much detail I should go into when I discuss specific scientific concepts. I need to know if we both are on the same page on what the scientific method is.

It is indeed true that history corroborates some of the events and figures in the Bible. But this doesn't in itself imply that all its contents are literally true and accurate. For example, the Harry Potter book series have a lot of historically correct places in them but most of the rest of the book is fiction.

If the Bible was literally true, this means that the universe is less then 10,000 years ago old? What explanation do you have to justify the fact that there are trees today even older than this? There are archaeological fossils that are hundreds of thousands of years old. How do you reconcile these inconsistencies?

Also, how do you explain the fact that some parts of the Bible are widely considered to be forged, even by Christian theologians? For instance, open the book of Mark 16:9-20 in any NIV Bible, and you will see a footnote at the bottom saying those verses weren't in the original manuscript and were added later. This is a widely accepted fact, for instance. The only thing is that Christian theologians seem to conclude that even the forgery must have been divinely inspired.

I have other thoughts about this, but will hold off so you can first respond to these. Thanks.

DoctorAlien:
Yes. I consider the Bible to be truth literally. History corroborates some of the events and figures recorded in the Bible. Also, biblical prophecies have come to fulfillment with astonishing accuracy.

Let me be even clearer. Do you consider all the contents of the Bible to be true and divinely inspired? If so, why?

Perfect! Thanks for letting me ask the first question. Usually I'm put on the defensive when it comes to this topic.

My first question:
Do you consider the Bible to be literal truth? If so, why?

I should add that my responses may not always be immediate because I live in a far away time zone. So this conversation might linger over several days due to time gaps. Yet, I will do my best to respond and engage expeditiously.

It's no problem bro. I completely understand, we both have lives outside NL.

First off, can we both agree on some guidelines for our conversation?
Here are my proposed guidelines.
1. There will be no abusive language towards each other, but of course we can criticize or vehemently disagree with each other's views.
2. The objective of each party is not to convert the other, it is to engage in a conversation to evaluate what is true and what is not, and what is credible and what is not.
3. We will relate with each other based on both empathy and logic as much as we can (i.e. when it comes to evaluating the veracity of any claims by me or you).

Let me know if you find these three guidelines reasonable. If not, please propose yours and we will go ahead. Not following the guidelines gives either of us the prerogative to terminate the conversation at any time.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

Good day bro. I must start by apologizing for not opening this thread up until now. This is due to some unforeseen circumstances. I hope you do pardon me.

Are we good to go?

You can drop any question you want me to answer.

Thx bro.

DoctorAlien:
Okay. I will.

Awesome. If you can, please could you read my other posts that I hyperlinked in my previous post? This would help our interaction be more productive, as you would know more about how I've thought about the issue and we'd be able to engage each other more productively.

DoctorAlien:
Great!

See you there.

Good questions. Trust me I didn't want to stop believing in what I thought was God at the time.

Yes it would be apt to discuss these topics on a separate new thread between you and I. Do create the thread and with prompts you want me to respond to and we can get started.

I will start responding sometime tomorrow because I'm a bit busy at the moment.

I look forward to it.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

I read the long piece you wrote on your journey to atheism. You said you started to become aware of the genocidal acts of GOD. This is the same reason why I wrote that seven-point article you quoted. An understanding of the fact that GOD created and owns humanity will make the motives behind His relationship with humanity clearer.

To the issue of miracles, I can tell you categorically that I have witnessed miracles in my life. Miracles, however, are not a standard for measuring GOD. Satan can do miracles too.

Concerning the slave trade, I'm a bit surprised you focused only on Africans. Do you know that slave trade is as old as man? I was expecting you to ask "why did GOD even allow slave trade to originate?" Asking this question will then lead us into asking "why is there evil today?"

On the historicity of Jesus, it is rather unfortunate that you stumbled upon only biased materials. You can read up Tacitus' piece on Jesus.

I wouldn't mind discussing all this with you on a new thread.

Hey bro, thx for the measured and thoughtful response.

I have written down different versions of my story on NL including this long writeup about my journey into disbelief, this short post about my disillusionment with Christianity, this post about my views on prophecies and miracles, this response to a Nairalander on the revisionist history of Christianity, and this brief conclusion on the idea of god/gods. Writing out these posts was therapeutic and cathartic for me.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

I understand where you're coming from, and I must admit that for an atheist(or someone who doesn't believe in GOD), you're really civil and ready to reason.

Well, I cannot presume to say that I have represented Christ's love as good as I should have done it. However, I know I have tried to reason with many a skeptic from the "Christ's love" point of view. The fact remains, unfortunately, that many will still not believe. The Bible has to be true in Psalm 14:1.

I'm somewhat intrigued that you, a person who had found "Christ's love", no longer believes in Jesus Christ.

Why did you abandon Christianity? What questions shook your faith in Christ? What discoveries did you make? What was the last straw that broke the camel's back?

I see where you are coming from, and a part of me identifies with you. I was once a very committed Christian, but obviously not anymore.

What I used to do in my interactions with atheists (when I was Christian) was I didn't assume that they had ulterior motives to be stubborn. It was clear to me that they were indeed truth-seekers and were not being needlessly disagreeable. I just felt they needed to find what I had found... Christ's love! I think if you take things from this perspective, you will have productive conversations with atheists even if neither side agrees with the other.

Ironically it wasn't my conversations with atheists that changed my mind. Years later, it was my own crazy questions about the nature of reality that triggered a lot more questions and even more painstaking research. I came out of the process empathizing for my atheist friends who in the years past had badgered me with questions that I didn't have crisp answers to. A couple of months later, I found myself ridding myself of what I now realized wasn't true and had never been true.

As for my Christian friends in real life, I am still very close friends with them. At the end of it all, we all realize that we are friends and what matters in our relationships is being good to each other and supporting one another, atheist or theist.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. However, you will agree with me that most "atheists" come to arguments with their minds made up. They have already concluded that GOD does not exist. And so when they say, "prove that GOD exists," you know they are not ready to reason with open minds. I'm sure that if GOD Himself came down and stood before them just to confirm that He exists, many of these "atheists" will dismiss such an experience as mere hallucination. Such is the degree of their openmindedness.

So what proof do you really need? Keep in mind that the post you quoted was made in a bid to clarify the character of GOD, which "atheists" willingly distort in a bid to create a strawman of Christian arguments.

At this point, I must say that most of what we have here as "atheists" are either hypocrites or unintelligent folks. When they want to show off their ignorance, they malign GOD. And when you make things clear to them about GOD's pure character, they scream "GOD does not exist!"

My thoughts: while I applaud your desire to propagate "God's word", I would implore you to think about your intended audience. First think of a way to convince us about the existence of the "GOD" that you refer to, and then your points would begin to come across. But you haven't yet established this credibility.

The issue is that your intended audience (myself included) views your statements as mere claims. Claims without evidence or unassailable logic are simply claims that will not be taken seriously. I could for instance replace the term "GOD" in your statements with "Thor", and the statements would have the exact same veracity (or lack thereof) as your statements below. Also, keep in mind that your use of the term "GOD" is itself ambiguous. Which "GOD"? Loki? Olorun? Vishnu? Yahweh? Zeus? Amadiora? Satan? Pick a "GOD" first and then go step by step in educating us. But keep in mind that most of the skeptics on here already know a lot about your religion (Christianity) and find it dubious. Yet, maybe you can convince some of us if you really have clear objective evidence for his existence.

Hope you get my drift.

DoctorAlien:
I just felt compelled to explain things to you.

1. GOD created you. He owns you.

2. GOD demands that you pay due obedience and respect to Him, as the Creator.

3. Sin is refusing to obey GOD.

4. GOD hates sin. His eyes are too pure to behold iniquity.

5. Sin pollutes GOD's creation. Disaster and death exist today because of sin. For the people who obey GOD, the presence of sin and its effect is enough torture.

6. GOD wants to rid His creation of sin and its effect, so that peace will reign.

7. It follows then that GOD will also get rid of those who have vowed to continue to practise sin, despite all the pleas and warnings from GOD.

Pot calling the kettle black. Yes Jesus is not god. Neither is Mohammed or the Koran divinely inspired!

Sow a seed? smdh. Really? Really? I can't believe that your advice is for her to further enrich Oyedepo, an unethical money-hungry scamming man of God god of men who is already supposedly worth $150m.

JerryTemi:
Speak to God in prayers,He can change everything I mean it.locate winners and sow a seed on this.

I love this thread. @Okoh1 and @AlfaAce, keep up the search for truth. Don't let anyone discourage or muzzle you.

Appeal to authority. That same Stephen Hawking you just quoted doesn't believe that your god does miracles, just FYI.

Ranchhoddas:
The only thing worse than ignorance is the illusion of knowledge- Stephen Hawking

Oh, the irony! You tell me you are not interested in proving that miracles are real but you now want me to prove my research to you? How ironic. You have clearly stated that you don't care to know or show that miracles are real (if you cared to know, then you would care to find out through indisputable and unfakeable means). Hearsay is sufficient for you. Well, I can't have a conversation with a counterparty who doesn't care about truth. They say ignorance is bliss; stay blissful.

Ranchhoddas:
Your mistake is that you think anyone is interested in proving anything to you. No one is. I certainly am not. Could you please tell us the nature of research that has led you to your conclusion?

I obviously did a lot of research before I reached this conclusion. What you are getting mixed up is whose prerogative it is to prove that miracles are real. It is not my prerogative to disprove miracles (when they never have been shown to be real), it is your prerogative (since you believe they are real) to prove that they are real. You don't seem to care about the truth, so I don't think there's much I can say to you. In any case, while I was Christian I did a lot of research on miracles and realized that miracles don't happen.

Ranchhoddas:
Same old, same old. What attempts have you made to determine the veracity of those 'fakeable' miracles? Does 'fakeability' mean falsity?

I think you are continuing to distrust the motives of atheists. Ok. If these miracles are not fake, why is it that unfakeable miracles never happen? Why?

I used to think that miracles were real (and that I was a beneficiary of a miracle or two) but it is now clear that all claims of miracles stop holding water whenever you remove ambiguity, placebo, or coincidence.

I am a bit surprised that you assert that miracles happen, yet these pastors can't simply go to Igbobi hospital to heal people with amputated limbs, why? Is god afraid of amputees? Why can't these so-called pastors tell us the location of the Chibok girls?

Why do all claims of miracles disappear when ambiguity and placebo are removed?

There has not been one unfakeable miracle, ever. Why? That you believe we should just accept on hearsay that miracles happen is itself problematic.

That you assume I haven't made real attempts to find out if miracles happen is deeply cynical, even though you don't know me and have never met me. I can't understand why you have antipathy for me because I disagree with your assertion about miracles. I grew up in a very Pentecostal church environment with several claims of miracles, but it is clear to me that these supposed miracles were not so.

People think miracles happen because of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, confusing of correlation with causation, and logical fallacies. If you care about the truth, you would dig as deep as you can to verify if miracles happen. But I'm afraid you are already cynical about those who are relentless about finding the truth.

Ranchhoddas:
What real attempts have you made to find out the truth? Anyone who REALLY wants to verify these 'miracle' claims would simply carry out an HONEST research. Go to the next crusade in your vicinity and see the number of people that would be healed or one form of ailment or another. Interview as many as possible and come back to tell us that they were paid to fake them. I am a skeptic myself but rationality is enough to make anyone in Nigeria see that these things actually happen. If they did not, we'd be faced with scandals upon scandals of people who have been paid to fake healing. Where are they?

The issue I see here is that you appear to automatically distrust the motives of people who concluded that theistic religion and its claims are a sham. This is not an attack on you, just an observation of a sentiment that you should examine. Is it wrong for someone to want to know the truth? Is it wrong to want to be able to separate truth from myths? You seem dismissive of anyone willing to question the accuracy of miracle claims. Shouldn't there be reasons to be skeptical about these claims? If these claims are true, they will eventually vindicate themselves and come out even greater. But they never have, why?

If asking questions is forbidden, then that's a problem.

The best things that have happened to our world in the past 500 years have been because of skepticism, i.e. rational thinkers don't accept something to be true because someone else said so; we accept things to be true because they are logically unassailable and/or clear evidence is provided. This is the reason why the phone in your hand works, the reason why GPS can tell you where you are, the reason why humans discovered the germ theory of disease, the reason why we have vaccines to pre-empt diseases, the reason why we can make airplanes fly, and more. If people weren't skeptical about claims of the spirit world controlling all aspects of the physical world, nobody would have tried to figure out the physical mechanisms of nature.

If people never question claims of the supernatural, we would still be in an age where epilepsy would be considered a strictly spiritual condition, the earth would still be considered flat, all sickness would be considered to be due to "bad air" or spirits, and more. Skepticism is one of the reasons why humanity moves forward.

Ranchhoddas:
Like I've told others before you, those miracles do not happen for your amusement. There are laws governing their occurences and if you do not obey them, they won't happen. Your skepticism does not negate the fact that they happen and continue to happen.

Ok, still waiting for an amputated limb miracle.

Ranchhoddas:
Like I've told others before you, those miracles do not happen for your amusement. There are laws governing their occurences and if you do not obey them, they won't happen. Your skepticism does not negate the fact that they happen and continue to happen.

So are you saying that something defying rational explanation means god(s) did it? The history of man is full of many events considered supernatural just because humans at the time didn't understand them. Today most such events (e.g. lightning, rain, etc) are not (for the most part) anymore considered supernatural whatsoever.

Are you familiar with the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" This phrase is one of the bedrocks of rational inquiry. It is perfectly reasonable for atheists (and just about anyone) to be skeptical about claims of a cripple being healed; "why?", you may ask. Well this is because it is an extraordinary claim such that extraordinary evidence is needed to believe it. Example evidence for instance would be images of the cripple's spinal MRI before and after the healing. A perfect unfalsifiable healing candidate would be a cripple whose spine was completely severed before the supposed healing act.

Peep this: if I told you that I physically levitated into the sky and visited the planet Mars last night, would you believe me? Likely not. So in the same way you shouldn't treat the healthy skepticism of atheists as misguided; similar to how I wouldn't treat your skepticism about my Mars visit as misguided.

We all need skepticism in order to identify what is true and what is not. Modern science wouldn't be here today if people accepted hear-say as fact. Rational inquiry and objectivity run on skepticism.

No proof has ever been presented of an unfalsifiable miracle happening, ever. I'm talking about miracles such as the reattachment of a severed human head during prayer or the reattachment or regrowth of an amputated limb through prayer. Or the reawakening of the fully rotten skeleton of someone as a result of prayer.

If Yahweh (or any other deity) were all-powerful, why wouldn't it perform miracles that cannot be faked? Don't you think this is a critical & worthy question?

Ranchhoddas:
It's not important to believe anything. It's just that there are some phenomena that defy rational explanation and the 'hardcore' atheists have failed to provide any sensible explanation to these things other than saying they did not happen or that they were stage-managed or some other insensible thing. A pastor simply prays for a crippled man and he immediately rises and begins to walk, people who have known him for all of his crippled life are dumbstruck and livid with awe at the transformation they have seen. What manner of rational inquiry would you ask them to undertake? If this isn't supernatural, what is it then? The only other move you can make at this point will be to deny that the event ever happened?

My response below is not meant to start a heated argument. Just trying to get a conversation going. I want to understand where you are coming from. It's a bit long so please pardon me.

Question: why is it important to believe that the supernatural exists? Note that I'm not asking why is it important to believe in a specific deity like Jesus or Odin or Thor or Amadiora. I am asking what moral or ethical or logistical difference does it make if one believes in the existence of the supernatural or not?

For instance, I am an agnostic atheist yet I am open to the idea that there could be weird forces in the universe that we are not aware of yet. But this doesn't mean that I will believe any claims about the existence of the supernatural without evidence. In my view, the question about the existence of the "supernatural" is itself problematic because humans arbitrarily defined that term as an attempt to comprehend aspects of nature whose causality they couldn't understand. The fact that the word "supernatural" exists in language does not mean that it has to be real. We have many concepts that exist in language but aren't real (e.g. Santa Claus, tooth fairies, etc).

Being atheist doesn't mean that one is philosophically closed off. I would actually argue the opposite. Many people become atheist precisely because they were open to questioning notions that other humans held sacrosanct (e.g. the existence of god/s or the spirit world), then later finding out that said notions were fabricated and have zero evidence backing them. You don't have to be sure that the supernatural doesn't exist in order to become atheist.

Atheism just means lack of belief in deities, it says nothing about level of knowledge of the existence of deities (agnosticism vs gnosticism addresses that). I hold the notion that though it is philosophically possible that the supernatural exists (whatever that means), this doesn't mean that the supernatural interferes in the physical world or gives a crap about if we believe in it or not. And this doesn't mean that the supernatural is conscious, or a being, or anthropomorphic, etc. What does supernatural even tangibly mean?

I would ask you another question: how certain are you that we (humans) were not created by an invisible spider residing in the gaseous clouds of Jupiter? If you say "yes, I am certain that we were not created by Jupiter spiders", on what basis would you say that? You would probably say that because there is zero evidence supporting that statement and it thus sounds outrageous to you. This is the same logic that naturally leads to rational inquiry (and in many cases, atheism).

The theistic approach claims to know of the existence of the supernatural unless disproven. But this is not how inquiry works. We can't assert that a notion is true unless disproven. We need evidence (or unassailable logic) in order to assert that something is true. This is why the idea of the supernatural is a nonstarter (and to me, mostly unimportant) to most atheists.

I am also not saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence (which is why almost all atheists are "agnostic" atheist). My commentary is that from a rational perspective, we can't hold beliefs based on the criteria that they must be first disproved in order to be considered untrue. Based on the criteria of "you must first disprove", I could say that you are a witch and then say that if you can't disprove it then the accusation is true; but we know that it is almost impossible to prove to someone that you are not a witch! And this doesn't change the fact that you, the accused, are not a witch.

Ranchhoddas:
Hmm. Really brave. Wish I could do same. Are you now certain that there is no such thing as the supernatural?

What is going on with this world?

Your comment is horrible beyond the pale, and I am even more stupefied that it got 482 likes and 41 shares so far . I can't believe that you applaud the fact that your dad beat your own mom. This is your own mom you are talking about here. She gave birth to you! You are advocating that the OP should do the same with his wife? Wow. So sad. I mean, I have heard of men promoting spousal battery but I have never ever met any human who gleefully applauds the beating his dad gave his mom. I am beyond words. This your post and the "likes" and "shares" it got are deeply depressing.

chuksbogus2001:
I don't know how Saudi deals men beating women .let me tell u when we were small my mum used to be very arrogant and rude to my dad cos he is a quiet man not until my mums mother I mean her own mum told my dad to beat her .After my dad gave her a better beating peace ,love respect came to our house since 1984 till now my mum has never raise her voice against my dad. Am not advocating women battery but a times small spanking does the magic

Given the right equipment, anyone can repeatably and reproducibly measure the effects of electrons to an extremely high level of accuracy. We can't do same with the idea of god/gods.

shadeyinka:
Like if electrons exist, everyone will see it!

And how do you know this? (@bolded)
Also, do keep in mind that saying "many gods could have created the universe" is the logical equivalent of saying that "no god(s) created the universe", which in turn is the logical equivalent to saying that "an invisible spider created the universe". All these are equivalent to every possibility we can think about: e.g. universe was created by one god (e.g. Amadiora), universe was created by child alien from another hypothetical universe, universe was created by inanimate matter, etc.

Instead of playing guess games about why the universe exists, the best answer is "we don't know!". Positing that it had to have been a conscious being, specifically Yahweh, is a logically indefensible leap; there is zero evidence of that.

shadeyinka:
Even if creation moments implied many gods (which isn't true anyway) the fact that the possibility is logically scientifically possible is OK for me now. The argument for Monotheism is for another day.

Quantum mechanics gave way to classical mechanics.

In any case, a creation moment doesn't not imply Yahweh. It could imply multiple gods, or another god, or no god. There's zero introvertible evidence to leap that it implies Yahweh.

shadeyinka:
You summarily dismissed the cross talks here as if your view is finality. Slow down get the gist

I perfectly agree with you, Newtons laws are only valid within Classical physics.
1. The arguments had been that the fundermental laws of physics had a beginning (after the bang).
2. Time existed before the b bang

If things like conservation of energy and mass, law of inertia, laws of entropy etc had a beginning, as Theists we say it points to a Creation. Like if time existed before the bang, what initiated the Bang?

Its like the case of the chicken and the egg, which came first!
Quantum or Classical States, which came first.

Better still, can Quantum States exist without the Classical laws?